Topic: On false dichotomies, Tweedledum vs. Tweedledee, and why YOU SHOULD NEVER VOTE! (Read 246 times)

Auctioneer: Let's start the bidding with ALL. Do I hear all? ALL! Do I hear 80%? 80, 80, 80. 80! 80 to the popcorn-eating dude in the back row. Do I hear 60%? 60, 60, 60 ... Going once ... Going twice ...

Politics ..
We all vote but every vote i do is a vote for the least ass hole ..
My vote goes to the one i think will be the less of 2 evils..

I mean if anyone thinks that any leader is all good is NUTS they are all scum bag leeches
lie to get monies and even go as far as blowing buildings up for 2.3 trillion dollars even though it killed many of their own peoples plus insurance scams and everything ..

So when anyone votes you are voting for the least ASS HOLE ..ALWAYS ..
You think which one will do the least harm to me ..

You know no matter who it is we vote for they will be lying robbing leeches  ..

Oh and Hilary would of had us all in ww3 by now if she won    she is EVIL
sell her gran mother she would..

So makes no difference who you vote for they all will end up being lying ASS HOLE LEECHES just some worse than others ..

Clinton bad bad bad WW3 sold nuke stuff to the RUSSIANS  ..

Could always flip a coin and vote because in the end they all end up lying scum bag leeches..
80% of politicians are lying leeches..

Okay, which one of you clowns created the sockpuppet? Please don't give nullius any excuse to delete your post as avowed in the OP. Follow the examples presented by suchmoon and myself as to what's allowed in this thread and chances are you won't be voted off. Oh, wait ... Carry on, Wayward Son.

Regardless if you vote or not between two evil, one evil will come out. If you didn't vote the lesser evil, you are helping the greater evil to win.

Does the system really give a shit if you vote or not?  

I think your math is wrong up there. If your vote is equal to an idiot's vote then it's not zero. And if you don't vote for the same subject then you're cancelling out the idiot's vote, which is presumably a good thing. If you don't vote however - then you're making it zero. In other words, if you're not using the system to your advantage (and I assume you're not actively rebelling either) then you're basically losing to the idiots. E.g. they elect someone who hikes your taxes up and you're letting them do it.

Boycotts don't work unless you have the scale comparable to that of a vote needed to enact change. What works is either vote or pitchforks, at least as far as I've seen. Passive protest - not so much.

Also I don't recall voter turnout being a problem for a revolution, in fact I'm quite certain I have witnessed a revolution in a place where voter turnout was in the high 90s. But I was very young back then so let's say my recollection is wrong.

Edit. Just to make this clear - I think a boycott might make sense in some limited circumstances, just not for the reasons you stated. E.g. if the vote count is rigged, or if there are safety concerns.

While I can understand why a person can be brought to such despair as to take the decision not to vote, and also the argument that not voting is a means of opposing the system itself, I find it inadequate. If holding such strong opinions about the system of governance, it is not enough merely to abstain from voting. One should also actively engage in pushing for alternatives, in what ever manner or whatever alternative that may be.

Okay, I've narrowed in down some more. nullius is a Jehovah Witness. Ref.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses#Separateness


It's already a given that there are no windows on the Nullius Hall.


/S

To clarify my intents with this thread:

American politics present not the same two contestants each time, but the same two variations of the same contestant.  By fixing candidates with insider party politics via the “primary” system, America has perfected the art of a falsely bifurcated one-party system with two faces.  Besides window-dressings to excite the proles, the only differences between the candidates are in what special-interests they pander to.  Appearances and breakable promises aside, they are never permitted to differ by even an iota on any question of long-term or large-scale importance.

But my criticism is not limited to America—though they’re by far the worst in the West for institutionally rigged electoral politics, and the best at hiding their corruption.

In principle, right answers are not determined by numeric majorities.  Were you poll Roger Ver, James Dimon, and Greg Maxwell on engineering, monetary, and economic questions, then the resulting answers would all be wrong.  Advancing this concept, let Minitru Media hype a new discovery that 2+2=5.  Then, take a poll on the value of twice two.  You will get votes for “4” from Winston Smith and a few others who are politically incorrect, and “5” from the overwhelming majority.  This is the underlying principle of democracy; and it’s not a bug:  It’s a feature.

Moreover, universal suffrage is ochlocracy by definition.  Yet a mob never rules itself; and no stable government has ever permitted idiots even the slightest chance of influencing important matters of policy.  Who rules mob rule?  And what are the implications of idiots being permitted a vote?

If my vote has value equal to the vote of a grinning idiot who casts ballots based on what’s shiniest on TV and Facebook, then the value of my vote equals zero.  However, it is valuable to the system.  No government in all of history has ever survived without at least the tacit consent of the majority—no king, no republic, no dictatorship.  “Voter turnout” numbers are part of a feedback loop of manufactured consent, which protects the system from either imploding under its own weight, or exploding in revolution.

By refusing to vote, I incrementally lower voter turnout numbers.  More importantly to me, I preserve my unimpeached moral right to condemn a system which I do not endorse, do not consent to, and indeed, do not support in any way (except insofar as may be forced from me at the point of a gun, e.g. taxes).  If I were to cast a vote, then I would be admitting that I think the system has at least some legitimacy.  But I do not so think—thus I do not so do.

Refuse the system.  Boycott the vote.

Uhm... nullius, I'm sorry to ask, but have you seen Trump? More importantly, have you listened to him?

I'm not sure that a reasonably intelligent person could ascribe some kind of intent (as in "Trump clearly wants") to his mumbling. He doesn't even appear to be able to hire people capable of carrying out his policies¹ - likely due to his obsession with loyalty over intelligence.

But he could accidentally kick us back to 1750s... or 750s. Bright side!

---

¹ not sure what those are but I assume they exist.

Do you also lift and at one time in your life earned a culinary degree? 

An aside about the current POTUS:  Trump clearly wants to remake American society as some modernized version of the 50s.  Thus:  After societies in almost every part of the world (including America) were already rotted to the core.  If you wish to exercise some real conservatism, try a different 50s:  The 1750s, before the era of decay which led to the moral and literal bloodbath of the French Revolution.  I have spoken similarly before:

Thread split:




Well, let’s consider the question in the hypothetical:

So, @criptix, do you mean the corrupt billionaire who once tried to turn some working folks’ homes into a casino parking garage, but now styles himself as a conservative hero of the working class—versus the corrupt millionaire political-Mrs. who drips empathy out of her limousine onto the welfare class who feeds off the working class?

At least, I think that Trump is marginally less likely to destroy the entire world than Hillary would have been.  I suppose that’s important to me.

Anyway, if I were American, I’d take Tweedledum.  No, wait—Tweedledee.  No—  I can’t decide!

I think the correct choice is neither.


This is why I say:  Don’t vote.  By voting, you grant your moral and practical political endorsements to a corrupt system:  An ochlocracy manipulated by a plutocracy.  The result is kakocracy:  Rule of the worst.

If you vote, then you are part of the problem.

---

(Note:  This thread is self-moderated, because I don’t want to inadvertently create yet another spam megathread for idiots trying to bump their post counts.  Illiterate one-liners and other low-quality posts will be deleted with extreme prejudice.  So will posts by both Trumpists, Hillary-drones, all Americans, and anybody who votes.  Hahah, just kidding.  Flame away!)